Last October, an ex-GOP Benghazi Committee staffer filed a lawsuit against the panel, claiming he was wronglyfired for refusing to center his investigation on Hillary Clinton — an accusation Clinton’s defenders held up as proof that the panel had devolved into a political witch hunt.

But five months later, Bradley Podliska’s lawsuit has quietly dropped all mention of Clinton.

Story Continued Below

Attorneys for the Air Force Reserve major filed an amendment to his originalclaim in late February, striking the legal clauses that included his accusation that the panel’s investigation was increasingly focused on Clinton — and that he was dismissed for refusing to go along.

It's a significant change from his original assertion.Podliska had burst onto the scene last fall, arguing he was directed to pursue Clinton and not the security failures at the U.S. Benghazi compound — comments that stoked Democratic ire against the panel as he made a whirlwind tour of cable news networks.

Those claims had come at the worst possible time for the panel: just days before Clinton was set to testify before the committee and in the midst of a drumbeat of attacks on their credibility by Clinton allies.Democrats and pro-Clinton groups like Correct the Record trumpeted Podliska’s accusations for weeks, arguing he corroborated their theories that the panel was only intended to hurt the 2016 Democratic front-runner.

Podliska’s lawyers, reached by phone on Tuesday, did not tell POLITICO why the claims had been removed. But one of them, Peter Romer-Friedman, offered this statement: "We are now in active litigation, and like the Committee we will not be commenting on pending motions. We look forward to the truth coming out in a court of law."

The House Benghazi panel declined to comment for this story. But while the change may give GOP committee members a sense of vindication, it likely won't undo the reputational damage the panel suffered during the monsoon of criticism last October, when the whole country was tuned in to the high-stakes hearing with Clinton.

Podliska on Oct. 11, 2015, in a sitdown interview with Jake Tapper on CNN's “State of the Union,” announced that he was going to file a lawsuit against the Benghazi committee for wrongful termination.

Part of his initial claim, a dispute that had been ongoing since that summer, was that the committee fired him for taking military leave. But on television that fall he said he was also wrongfully terminated because he refused to conduct a partisan probe of Clinton.

At the time, in his lawsuit and public statements, hesaid the committee had veered from its original plan to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that left four Americans dead — and had instead zeroed in on Clinton's tenure at State.

GOP investigators have maintained Podliska was let go for partisanship and not following orders, dismissing the accusation as a ploy designed to hurt the panel and get a settlement. But the damage was done: The committee was already reeling after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested the panel’s creation had something to do with hurting Clinton on the trail. And Democrats seized on both as evidence that the committee should be discredited.

On Nov. 23, his lawyers filed a claim alleging that he was treated differently after “the Committee’s investigation changed significantly to focus on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department, and deemphasize the other agencies that were involved in the Benghazi attack and the aftermath of the attack.”

“[I]t was clear to Plaintiff that he was being singled out because of his military service and because he was unwilling to go along with the hyper-focus on the State Department and Secretary Clinton based upon the fact that his comprehensive, thorough, and objective investigation was pointing at other agencies and individuals and not solely the State Department and Secretary Clinton,” the initial claim read at the time.

The committee, represented by House counsel, made a motion to dismiss the entire case in early February, and cited Podliska's own claims that he and his Benghazi panel supervisors often clashed — which the House attorneys said undercutany suggestion that military leave discrimination was the reason.

“Plaintiff and his supervisors simply did not see eye to eye on the direction of the Select Committee’s investigation or plaintiff’s role in setting that direction,” the Housefiling said. “These same allegations however, reveal why plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims … in which he alleges discrimination and retaliation.”

The panel, the House also argued, is protected by the speech and debate clause, which provides staff with “immunity from suit for actions predicated on legislative activities, protection from having their legislative activities used as evidence against them, and privilege against being questioned or compelled to disclose information about their legislative activities.”

With the Clinton-related language removed, the complaint focuses solely on the allegation that Podliska was let go for taking several weeks off work to serve overseas — another accusation disputed by the panel,which notes that it's staffed by ex-military members.

Asked if he no longer contends that the Clinton issue was a reason for his firing, his lawyer said: “I’m not going to get into the details … We’re in the middle of motion practice.”

Former Hill counsel Stan Brand of Akin Gump said Podliska lawyers are likely “trying to avoid the entanglement in the speech and debate issue,” which essentially makes his argument moot.“He couldn’t possibly prove that allegation without breaching speech and debate because decisions on what to investigate and what not to investigate are core legislative decisions,” he said. “The privilege is absolute; there is no way he can get around that.”